There seems to be an undesirable trade off to this move (some people say this online safety bill is a Trojan horse) that would usher in digital IDs and many seem to be concerned about the potential impact of that.
I have enormous respect for Jon Haidt's work and fully support his concern about the harms of online material on children, but let me assure overseas readers that there is now a huge outcry in Australia over Andrew Leigh's government's efforts to ram this legislation through parliament without proper scrutiny about digital IDs required to support the new laws. Australia faced some of the most draconian lockdown measures in the world during Covid and we are rightly very nervous about our governments' determination to control their citizenry. We also are extremely wary of the fact that this new law would give the eSafety Commission a role in determing the material deemed harmful to children. This Commission has shown itself to be duplicitious in falsely claiming girls and women are the major target of online abuse and ignoring the risks to boys of sexploitation, despite Federal police warnings about this important issue. See here - https://open.substack.com/pub/bettinaarndt/p/protecting-boys-from-sexploitation?r=iqrdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web. Andrew Leigh is not an appropriate spokesperson for this highly controversial legislation.
You raise an excellent point. Across the world Covid-Governments Who were “trained” by Big Tech lobbyst, may be playing with the protection of children to build in the next level of “digital Total submission decade” otherwise they would have banned devices a long time ago as a top priority. At the same time if we as adults don’t do anything to stop this children mass exploitation and indoctrination to only care for their fake image and to endorse cruelty and sadism WHAT ARE WE SAYING YES TO? Tech Is structured to make adults fall in love with an escape from responsibility.
Prof Haidt Is an adult Who doesn’t escape responsibility and invites all of us to do the same. We ve got to start somewhere.
Oh, what a coincidence, because in Vietnam they're starting to require phone numbers or IDs to make a social media account too, and children below 16 have to have their guardians permission to make one. This seems to be a global trend now.
Sadly, the author has been misled by the Australian government's narrative. The Digital ID act will require all users (including adults) to register their name, date of birth and private details so that we can now all be tracked on line. It is a Trojan Horse for censorship, CCP-flavoured, government surveillance and egregious removal of anonymity online. The majority of Australians were against this Digital ID bill in polling. Thank goodness there is a provision not to comply. As a fierce supporter of open and robust public debate I will not be signing up. I know no one (with a critical thinking brain) who is. We can now be hunted down (like in the UK) and jailed for saying anything that is contrary to the government's narrative. Remember COVID? This will be a failed policy, and another international embarrassment for Australia. (Remember Australia is the only country in the world that refuses to consider nuclear power). So, so sorry world.
We have already all been tracked online for two decades by greedy scrupleless private corporates Who got Rich by selling our manipulation and alienation. And we accepted that. No wonder Govts want to try the same! What if Digital ID have the positive effect to force US to actually talk to each other OFFLINE like in the old days when algorithms did not seed hatred and anger and make people obsessed with themselves ? It could enable US to rediscover the Joy of few meaningful relationships and care for each other truly. Children must be protected online at all costs. Not Just from social media but from any Digital or AI product that can do harm or expose them to undue influence.
It will never stop there. Nor will any problems really be solved in doing so. Slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear. And people like you will be regrettably eating your words, syllable, by syllable, once it is too late. Remember, "First, they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I wasn't a communist...."
But perhaps this is the penance that OUR OWN generation, the Elder Millennials, needs to do right now to redeem ourselves. Even so, it throws future generations under the bus too, and that is not right.
I am not in favor of digital IDs where they seduce US gently to do everything with it, I like the idea of a Digital ID that you put your face in what you express and take responsibility for it. With an ID the virtual space would become much more civilized overnight (but companies would go bankrupt then...
It may very well make people more polite online, but would nonetheless have a chilling effect on any speech that is even marginally controversial. Baby, meet bathwater.
It seems to me that you are confusing the Misinformation Bill and the Bill that we are talking about here, the age of consent for using social media. I don’t know what the proper name is for that Bill, but I’m sure you know which one I’m referring to.
I agree that there was significant public outcry about the misinformation bill - and that has now been withdrawn. And good riddance to it!
While the intentions may be good the legislation is a mess. Australians were given 24 hours only to submit. The senate considered evidence in the bill for less than a day.
It won’t apply to pornhub!
It is a terribly rushed blunt instrument.
Florida passed careful legislation with well worded definitions eg if a x% of children on the service under age x spend more than y time continuously etc.
The Australian legislation is horrific. I am so disappointed to see what amounts to an endorsement of the legislation without actually looking at it. Senator Matt Canavan is doing a lot of work on it and has prepared some comparisons of the Florida drafting and has also come up with amendments he is hoping to have pushed through.
I quoted Jon’s work in my submission so am quite devastated by this Jon’s rubber stamp approval of this rush to implement a blunt instrument approach simply because it intends to address a real problem.
They start by saying children are giving their data away to these companies but their solution, provide enough data to actually prove age to these companies? A digital ID they say. I assume they would want us to use our MyGov account. Allowing easy identification and tracking across the board. In the UK anything you post on social media can get you reported and charges, just for someone saying they are offended. How do we know where this is leading?
I’m very grateful that Australia is leading the way in protecting their children from the exploitation of big tech companies. This is a great step in reclaiming their childhoods from screens and it will hopefully do wonders for their mental health. I hope many more countries will follow suit.
Sadly Andreas, the Australian government has just embarrassed themselves. Read my post above. Pornhub will still be available. It is a hasty, and ill-prepared piece of policy that is being resisted across all demographics in Australia.
Follow all the Senators with critical thinking on X - example: Matt Canavan.
Yikes Matt Canavan denies climate change and has been actively trying to halt any meagre steps Australia might take towards reducing emissions. Not the critical thinking I would follow
Thanks for laying this all out so clearly, Andrew. The one thing I might take issue with is the idea that gaming platforms are already sufficiently covered by the National Classification Scheme. The NCS covers only elements such as violence, sex and themes, but has nothing to say about the vast majority of issues we are concerned with here. For example it does nothing about addictive design, bullying or misuse of personal data. I really hope the government will rethink this exclusion
I agree with Bettina Arndt. This law is misconceived in the same way simplistic measures about drug use and abuse are. In that sphere, the language reflects the belief that 'it is the drug that makes you an addict.' That is a dangerous misconception. The same applies to social media. That is a tool, and like all tools, it is how it is used that is important. Ripping it out of context with a blanket ban, devoid of promoting pro-children and pro-family strategies, is like a new chapter in Animal Farm. And yes, this is Australia, where COVID taught us just how much our parliamentarians seem to enjoy becoming controllers.
Jon and colleagues write about the impact of 'good / strong / risk buffering' communities. That is where I encourage them and others to focus. It need not be a mystery - but it will stay that way if people simply look to centralised government blanket interventions.
And now let’s have a discussion on the harms and risks of digital IDs and risk of exposure of full name and address and age of users in hacking incidents.
It's a nice idea, and seems to have bipartisan support here in Aus. It won't work though. Age verification is notoriously difficult to implement and notoriously easy to bypass. See China's attempt for a readymade example. Kids will easily bypass whatever mechanism is implemented. Further, there was much upset a year or two ago with an attempt to roll out "digital passports" in Australia for age verification for pornography. There was massive pushback and although the Government has stated that there won't be digital passports/ID's to implement this underage ban, there's always a massive hangover from their last attempt and most Australian's are hugely against having their internet use monitored/regimented, even for the sake of our under 16y/o's mental wellbeing. In local news in Australia recently, many younger people have been speaking up about how although social media is bad for them (undoubtedly at this point), for a lot of individuals it provides safe community, employment, creative purpose etc. There are many younger content creators who started a YouTube channel, instagram etc. in their younger years who have found much success but are still under 16. I can't see these people being barred from their jobs and purpose. Long story short, unfortunately these things never seem to work.
There seems to be an undesirable trade off to this move (some people say this online safety bill is a Trojan horse) that would usher in digital IDs and many seem to be concerned about the potential impact of that.
BINGO
I have enormous respect for Jon Haidt's work and fully support his concern about the harms of online material on children, but let me assure overseas readers that there is now a huge outcry in Australia over Andrew Leigh's government's efforts to ram this legislation through parliament without proper scrutiny about digital IDs required to support the new laws. Australia faced some of the most draconian lockdown measures in the world during Covid and we are rightly very nervous about our governments' determination to control their citizenry. We also are extremely wary of the fact that this new law would give the eSafety Commission a role in determing the material deemed harmful to children. This Commission has shown itself to be duplicitious in falsely claiming girls and women are the major target of online abuse and ignoring the risks to boys of sexploitation, despite Federal police warnings about this important issue. See here - https://open.substack.com/pub/bettinaarndt/p/protecting-boys-from-sexploitation?r=iqrdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web. Andrew Leigh is not an appropriate spokesperson for this highly controversial legislation.
You raise an excellent point. Across the world Covid-Governments Who were “trained” by Big Tech lobbyst, may be playing with the protection of children to build in the next level of “digital Total submission decade” otherwise they would have banned devices a long time ago as a top priority. At the same time if we as adults don’t do anything to stop this children mass exploitation and indoctrination to only care for their fake image and to endorse cruelty and sadism WHAT ARE WE SAYING YES TO? Tech Is structured to make adults fall in love with an escape from responsibility.
Prof Haidt Is an adult Who doesn’t escape responsibility and invites all of us to do the same. We ve got to start somewhere.
You too will regret it one day when it's too late, mark my words.
Oh, what a coincidence, because in Vietnam they're starting to require phone numbers or IDs to make a social media account too, and children below 16 have to have their guardians permission to make one. This seems to be a global trend now.
Lockstep
Indeed, it's the beginning of the end of the (relatively) free and open internet as we knew it.
Sadly, the author has been misled by the Australian government's narrative. The Digital ID act will require all users (including adults) to register their name, date of birth and private details so that we can now all be tracked on line. It is a Trojan Horse for censorship, CCP-flavoured, government surveillance and egregious removal of anonymity online. The majority of Australians were against this Digital ID bill in polling. Thank goodness there is a provision not to comply. As a fierce supporter of open and robust public debate I will not be signing up. I know no one (with a critical thinking brain) who is. We can now be hunted down (like in the UK) and jailed for saying anything that is contrary to the government's narrative. Remember COVID? This will be a failed policy, and another international embarrassment for Australia. (Remember Australia is the only country in the world that refuses to consider nuclear power). So, so sorry world.
BINGO. Slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear!
We have already all been tracked online for two decades by greedy scrupleless private corporates Who got Rich by selling our manipulation and alienation. And we accepted that. No wonder Govts want to try the same! What if Digital ID have the positive effect to force US to actually talk to each other OFFLINE like in the old days when algorithms did not seed hatred and anger and make people obsessed with themselves ? It could enable US to rediscover the Joy of few meaningful relationships and care for each other truly. Children must be protected online at all costs. Not Just from social media but from any Digital or AI product that can do harm or expose them to undue influence.
I don’t think any government wants to track citizens online in order to foment joyful personal relationships.
It will never stop there. Nor will any problems really be solved in doing so. Slopes are MUCH slipperier than they appear. And people like you will be regrettably eating your words, syllable, by syllable, once it is too late. Remember, "First, they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I wasn't a communist...."
But perhaps this is the penance that OUR OWN generation, the Elder Millennials, needs to do right now to redeem ourselves. Even so, it throws future generations under the bus too, and that is not right.
I am not in favor of digital IDs where they seduce US gently to do everything with it, I like the idea of a Digital ID that you put your face in what you express and take responsibility for it. With an ID the virtual space would become much more civilized overnight (but companies would go bankrupt then...
It may very well make people more polite online, but would nonetheless have a chilling effect on any speech that is even marginally controversial. Baby, meet bathwater.
I’m a little bit confused by what you wrote.
It seems to me that you are confusing the Misinformation Bill and the Bill that we are talking about here, the age of consent for using social media. I don’t know what the proper name is for that Bill, but I’m sure you know which one I’m referring to.
I agree that there was significant public outcry about the misinformation bill - and that has now been withdrawn. And good riddance to it!
But the age of consent bill?
Digital ID Trojan horse. Law isn’t written well enough.
Beware and resist digital ID!!!
While the intentions may be good the legislation is a mess. Australians were given 24 hours only to submit. The senate considered evidence in the bill for less than a day.
It won’t apply to pornhub!
It is a terribly rushed blunt instrument.
Florida passed careful legislation with well worded definitions eg if a x% of children on the service under age x spend more than y time continuously etc.
The Australian legislation is horrific. I am so disappointed to see what amounts to an endorsement of the legislation without actually looking at it. Senator Matt Canavan is doing a lot of work on it and has prepared some comparisons of the Florida drafting and has also come up with amendments he is hoping to have pushed through.
I quoted Jon’s work in my submission so am quite devastated by this Jon’s rubber stamp approval of this rush to implement a blunt instrument approach simply because it intends to address a real problem.
Indeed, and even Florida's new law isn't exactly model legislation either.
They start by saying children are giving their data away to these companies but their solution, provide enough data to actually prove age to these companies? A digital ID they say. I assume they would want us to use our MyGov account. Allowing easy identification and tracking across the board. In the UK anything you post on social media can get you reported and charges, just for someone saying they are offended. How do we know where this is leading?
It Is leading to go back to the human basic: real Life unsurveilled interaction
Like the PRC the next step after government limiting online interaction will be real life surveillance of everyone.
I’m very grateful that Australia is leading the way in protecting their children from the exploitation of big tech companies. This is a great step in reclaiming their childhoods from screens and it will hopefully do wonders for their mental health. I hope many more countries will follow suit.
Sadly Andreas, the Australian government has just embarrassed themselves. Read my post above. Pornhub will still be available. It is a hasty, and ill-prepared piece of policy that is being resisted across all demographics in Australia.
Follow all the Senators with critical thinking on X - example: Matt Canavan.
Yikes Matt Canavan denies climate change and has been actively trying to halt any meagre steps Australia might take towards reducing emissions. Not the critical thinking I would follow
Thanks for laying this all out so clearly, Andrew. The one thing I might take issue with is the idea that gaming platforms are already sufficiently covered by the National Classification Scheme. The NCS covers only elements such as violence, sex and themes, but has nothing to say about the vast majority of issues we are concerned with here. For example it does nothing about addictive design, bullying or misuse of personal data. I really hope the government will rethink this exclusion
So well written, especially about the 2 reasons to enact the law even though it may not be absolutely perfect. Bravo, Australia!
I agree with Bettina Arndt. This law is misconceived in the same way simplistic measures about drug use and abuse are. In that sphere, the language reflects the belief that 'it is the drug that makes you an addict.' That is a dangerous misconception. The same applies to social media. That is a tool, and like all tools, it is how it is used that is important. Ripping it out of context with a blanket ban, devoid of promoting pro-children and pro-family strategies, is like a new chapter in Animal Farm. And yes, this is Australia, where COVID taught us just how much our parliamentarians seem to enjoy becoming controllers.
Jon and colleagues write about the impact of 'good / strong / risk buffering' communities. That is where I encourage them and others to focus. It need not be a mystery - but it will stay that way if people simply look to centralised government blanket interventions.
And now let’s have a discussion on the harms and risks of digital IDs and risk of exposure of full name and address and age of users in hacking incidents.
BINGO. Out of the frying pan, and right into the fire.
Appreciate this Substack but extremely dismayed to see support for Totalitarian Digital ID measures.
It's a nice idea, and seems to have bipartisan support here in Aus. It won't work though. Age verification is notoriously difficult to implement and notoriously easy to bypass. See China's attempt for a readymade example. Kids will easily bypass whatever mechanism is implemented. Further, there was much upset a year or two ago with an attempt to roll out "digital passports" in Australia for age verification for pornography. There was massive pushback and although the Government has stated that there won't be digital passports/ID's to implement this underage ban, there's always a massive hangover from their last attempt and most Australian's are hugely against having their internet use monitored/regimented, even for the sake of our under 16y/o's mental wellbeing. In local news in Australia recently, many younger people have been speaking up about how although social media is bad for them (undoubtedly at this point), for a lot of individuals it provides safe community, employment, creative purpose etc. There are many younger content creators who started a YouTube channel, instagram etc. in their younger years who have found much success but are still under 16. I can't see these people being barred from their jobs and purpose. Long story short, unfortunately these things never seem to work.
Please invite the author to respond to these criticisms.